IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 29.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Uploaded on: 05.02.2026 Sumitter Kaur and others ….Appellants Versus Thiru P. Nagarajan and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Ms. Divyam Suri, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. R.C. Gupta , Advocate, for the Respondent No 2.

Mr. Satpal Dhamija , Advocate, for the Respondent No 4.

*****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the Award dated 05.04.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala , whereby the claim petition filed by Appellants for grant of compensation on account of death of Kala Singh alias Aya Singh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 19.04.1996 was dismissed on merits, though the appellants were awarded Rs.50,000/- under no-fault liability.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the Appellants case is that on 19.04.1996, the deceased was driving a truck bearing registration number PB-11-E/9257. While returning from Bangalore towards Punjab, and upon reaching the revenue limits of Ratangru in Chittran District, Karnataka, a truck bearing registration number TN-33-A/6666 struck the vehicle driven by the deceased. It was specifically asserted by the Appellants that the offending truck (TN- 33/A-6666), owned by respondent No. 1, was being driven in an extremely rash and negligent manner by the driver, Sanger alias Govindaraju. It was a head -on collision of such severity that both drivers involved in the accident died. Following the incident, a criminal case was registered under sections 279/337/304-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Amingal, Haripur. At the time of his death, the deceased was approximately 35 years of age and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. On the basis of these parameters, the appellants sought a total compensation of Rs. 20 lacs.

3. Respondent No. 2 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Insurer of TN-33-A/6666) filed a detailed written statement contesting the maintainability of the petition. They pleaded that the claimants were only entitled to file a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act. Furthermore, they pleaded that the driver of truck No. TN-33-A-6666 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Crucially, they denied all allegations of negligence on the part of Sanger, asserting instead that the accident was the result of the fault and negligence of the deceased driver himself.

4. Respondent No. 4 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurer of PB-11-E/9257) also submitted a written statement to contest the claim. They raised a preliminary objection that the driver of the truck (the deceased) was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the occurrence. They maintained that since the injuries were received during the course of employment, only the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act held the competency to try the petition.

5. Respondent No. 3 (Eash Malhotra, Owner of PB-11-E-9257) and Respondent No. 1 (Thiru P. Nagarajan, Owner of TN-33-A-6666) both failed to appear despite notice, leading the Tribunal to proceed against them ex-parte on 21.01.1998 and 05.11.1997 respectively.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by Learned Tribunal:-

“1. Whether Sangal alias Gobinda Raju, driver of truck No. TN-33/A-6666 while driving his truck rashly and negligently caused the death of Kala Singh alias Aya Singh on 19.4.96? OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives/legal heirs of the deceased? OPP.

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to the grant of compensation? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPP.

4. Whether the driver of truck No. PB-11-E/ 9257 was not having a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR.

5. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection No.2 of the written statement? OPR.

6. Relief.”